ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Vol. 115, 1–7, 2007
Somatotypes of young male athletes and non-athlete students in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Neni Trilusiana RAHMAWATI1, Santosa BUDIHARJO1, Kumi ASHIZAWA2*
2
1
Laboratory of Anatomy and Anthropology, School of Medicine Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Institute of Human Living Sciences, Otsuma Women’s University, Sanban-cho 12, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-8357 Japan
Received 8 October 2005; accepted 28 March 2006
Abstract There is a considerable corpus of evidence indicating that athletes succeeding in certain
sports have distinctive body shapes that differ according to the demands of the type of sports and competitive level. The aim of this study was to determine the specific morphological characteristics of
young male athletes compared with non-athlete students in Indonesia. Anthropometric measurements
of 19 badminton players, 96 soccer players, 74 volleyball players, and 51 non-athlete undergraduate
students, aged 16 to 28, were obtained in 1994 and 1995. Stature, body weight, bicondylar breadths
of the humerus and femur, calf and upper arm circumferences, and skinfolds (at triceps, subscapula,
calf, and supraspine) were measured for each subject. Heath-Carter somatotypes were determined in
all the subjects. The results of the ANOVA of the body measurements showed that the three groups
of athletes and the non-athlete students were heterogeneous: the badminton players were shorter and
lighter with greater skinfold values among the athlete groups; the soccer players were relatively shorter
and with smaller skinfold values and greater arm and leg girths; and the volleyball players were taller
and heavier with smaller elbow and knee breadths and very small skinfold values. The non-athlete students were characterized by greater arm girth, elbow breadths, knee breadths, and back and leg skinfolds. In mean somatotype category, the badminton players were ‘central’ (3.3-3.7-3.7), the soccer
players were ‘balanced mesomorph’ (2.7-4.9-3.0), the volleyball players were ‘mesomorph-ectomorph’
(2.4-3.5-3.7), and the non-athlete students were ‘ectomorphic mesomorph’ (2.7-5.2-3.8). Comparisons
of international scope with each of the different sports showed that the Indonesian players were
extremely short and light.
Key words: somatotype, Javanese, youth, athletes, non-athlete students
with the particular requirements of their respective events
(Piscopo and Baley, 1981; Kansal et al., 1986; Carter and
Heath, 1990). On the web site ‘Somatotype Bibliography II
(1991 to April 2003)’ (www.somatotype.org/bibliography.
php), we found 179 references, including master’s theses
and conference proceedings. Many of these publications are
in Spanish, and/or are studies reported in physical fitness
and sports medicine journals. In the major anthropology and
human biology journals, such as the Annals of Human Biology, the American Journal of Human Biology, the American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, and Anthropological Science, there have been few studies since 1990 concerning
somatotypes.
According to Carter and his colleagues (Carter, 1968;
Carter and Heath 1990), football players of the National
Football League and San Diego State University were endomesomorphic, with mean somatotypes of approximately
4.5-6.5-1.5 and 4.6-6.3-1.4, respectively. The USA national
volleyball team of 1985 was less endomorphic and mesomorphic, and more ectomorphic than the 1975 team, while
soccer players from five countries in the South American
Youth Championship had a mean somatotype of 3.6-3.6-2.5
or endomorph-mesomorph.
Very few definitive studies have been made on the somatotypes of athletes in Asia, except in Japan. Since there are
Introduction
Sports scientists and human biologists have paid much
attention to the relationships between physical characteristics and performance in sports. Many studies based on
anthropometry have concluded that the morphological characteristics of athletes successful in a specific sport are biased
in comparison with ordinary non-athletes, among type of
sports and among levels within a sports (de Garay et al.,
1974). According to Carter and Heath (1990), more than 100
studies have been published in the past 15 years, and 14
books have reported studies of Olympic athletes.
One method of describing morphological characteristics
is somatotyping, in which body shape, rather than size, is
expressed by a three-number rating that represents the components of endomorphy (fatness), mesomorphy (musculoskeletal development) and ectomorphy (linearity) (Sheldon,
1940, 1954). It is now established that outstanding athletes
and people in sports differ significantly in their physical and
physiological characteristics, corresponding, to some extent,
* Corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected]
phone: +81-3-5275-6043; fax: +81-3-3264-6977
Published online 8 August 2006
in J-STAGE (www.jstage.jst.go.jp) DOI: 10.1537/ase.051008
© 2006 The Anthropological Society of Nippon
1
2
ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE
N.T. RAHMAWATI ET AL.
Mesomorphy = [(0.858 × humerus breadth)
+ (0.601 × femur breadth)
+ (0.188 × corrected arm girth)
+ (0.161 × corrected calf girth)]
− (height × 0.131) + 4.50
Ectomorphy = HWR × 0.732 − 28.58 (if HWR ≥ 40.75),
ectomorphy = HWR × 0.463 − 17.63 (if 40.75 > HWR
> 38.25),
ectomorphy = 0.1 (if 38.25 ≥ HWR).
HWR is height/(cube root of weight).
The somatotype of each subject was plotted on the Carter
somatochart after calculating the X and Y coordinate values
using the following formula (Carter and Heath, 1990):
X = ectomorphy − endomorphy; Y = 2 × mesomorphy − (endomorphy + ectomorphy).
Authors N.T.R and S.B. measured the subjects, and K.A.
analysed the data. Statistical analysis was performed using
the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version
10 for Macintosh.
no extensive data on the physique of Indonesian athletes, the
purpose of this study is to determine the morphological characteristics and somatotypes of male badminton, soccer, and
volleyball players in comparison with non-athlete students
of Yogyakarta.
Subjects and Methods
The subjects were all males, numbering 19 badminton
players (aged 16 to 27), 96 soccer players (aged 16 to 28), 74
volleyball players (aged 16 to 28); 51 medical students (aged
17 to 21) served as a control group. The subjects were measured in Yogyakarta in 1994 and 1995. The athletes were
both professionals and amateurs; the former were from
famous local-level teams but not national league members.
The average age of the control student group was younger
than the athletes, and this may imply that there growth was
incomplete. Since these controls were medical students, the
indication is that they were from well-off families.
The following 10 body measurements were obtained for
each subject employing the method described in Carter and
Heath (1990): stature, body weight, bicondylar breadths of
the humerus and femur, calf and upper arm circumferences,
and triceps, subscapular, calf, and supraspinal skinfolds.
Stature was measured to the nearest 1 mm with an anthropometer, body weight with minimal clothing was recorded
to the nearest 0.05 kg employing a weighing scale, and skinfolds were obtained using a Holtain caliper with a constant
pressure of 10 g/mm. Outlier subjects in each group with a
measurement value greater than 3 standard deviations (SD)
from the mean were deleted. After the mean values and standard deviations were obtained for the final data set, the
somatotype components of the individual subjects were calculated according to the Heath–Carter method, using the following equations (Carter, 1980; Carter and Heath, 1990):
Endomorphy = − 0.7182 + 0.1415(X) − 0.00068(X2)
+ 0.0000014(X3)
where X = triceps skinfold + subscapular skinfold
+ supraspinale skinfold
Results
The mean and SD values of the body measurements are
given in Table 1. To normalize the distribution, skinfolds
were transformed using the following formula (Tanner,
1962): Z = 100 log10 (X − 18), where X is the skinfold reading in 0.1 mm. The transformed skinfolds are indicated with
the prefix ‘Z-’. One-way ANOVA of the measurements
among the three groups of athletes and the group of students
revealed a highly significant difference except with the Zsupraspinal skinfold (femur breadth, 0.05 > P > 0.01; the
others, 0.001 > P). Among the three athlete groups no statistical difference was detected in femur breadth and Zsupraspinal and Z-medial calf skinfolds; the other measurements were significantly different (humerus breadth,
0.05 > P > 0.01; Z-subscapular skinfold, 0.001 > P). Body
mass index (BMI) was defined as weight (kg)/stature2 (m2).
The mean and SD values of each somatoscore are presented in Table 2. A normal distribution was obtained only
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation values of the body measurements
Badminton
Soccer
Volleyball
Students
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
Age (yrs)
19
(16–27)
—
96
(16–28)
—
74
(16–28)
—
51
(17–21)
—
Stature (cm)
Upper arm girth (cm)
Calf girth (cm)
Humerus breadth (cm)
Femur breadth (cm)
Triceps skinfolds (mm)
Z-Triceps (0.1 mm)
Subscapular skinfolds (mm)
Z-Subscapular (0.1 mm)
Supraspinal skinfolds (mm)
Z-Supraspinal (0.1 mm)
Medial calf skinfolds (mm)
Z-Medial calf (0.1 mm)
Weight (kg)
BMI
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
160.4
22.9
33.7
6.5
8.7
9.5
184.6
9.2
184.6
11.8
195.6
9.9
184.3
48.7
18.9
6.78
2.58
2.17
0.41
1.14
—
20.24
—
20.24
—
24.09
—
27.73
7.38
2.05
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
166.4
27.7
36.1
7.0
9.2
6.7
152.1
8.9
152.1
11.2
189.2
8.9
178.3
58.0
20.9
5.07
2.07
2.42
0.91
1.25
—
42.63
—
42.63
—
28.66
—
28.16
6.56
1.79
74
74
74
74
74
74
68
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
172.9
27.5
34.9
6.7
8.9
5.2
132.4
8.2
132.4
11.4
192.4
8.3
175.7
60.8
20.3
6.09
2.44
2.58
0.58
0.60
—
56.23
—
56.23
—
23.72
—
23.96
8.60
2.00
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
165.6
26.9
33.9
7.5
9.5
4.6
131.0
10.4
131.0
11.9
189.7
11.4
192.0
53.2
19.4
5.68
2.13
2.18
1.15
1.59
—
37.56
—
37.56
—
31.20
—
24.23
6.84
2.11
Vol. 115, 2007
SOMATOTYPES OF INDONESIAN ATHLETES AND STUDENTS
3
Table 2. Mean and standard deviation values of somatoscores
Badminton
Endomorphic score
Mesomorphic score
Ectomorphic score
Soccer
Volleyball
Students
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
19
19
19
3.29
3.70
3.67
0.76
1.08
1.25
96
96
96
2.70
4.94
2.95
1.12
1.48
0.91
74
74
74
2.39
3.50
3.71
1.07
0.82
0.94
51
51
51
2.71
5.20
3.75
1.36
2.07
1.24
with the endomorphic score of the soccer (0.01 > P > 0.001)
and student (0.001 > P) groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test of
the somatoscores indicated that all the somatoscores were
significantly different among the four groups (endomorphic
score, 0.01 > P > 0.001; mesomorphic and ectomorphic
scores, 0.001 > P).
In brief, the badminton, soccer, and volleyball players,
and the non-athlete students were heterogeneous with
respect to both anthropometric characteristics and the somatoscores.
Discussion
Anthropometric characteristics
A normal distribution was obtained in all four groups,
only with stature, calf girth, and BMI. Comparisons of each
measurement are illustrated in Figure 1. The difference
between each pair of groups (multiple comparisons) was
tested by means of the Tukey HSD and Scheffé’s tests for the
measurements with normal and non-normal distributions,
respectively.
From Figure 1 it can be seen that there was no statistical
difference in the femur breadth and Z-supraspinal skinfold
between any of the group pairs. The badminton players were
distinguished by shortness, lightness, low BMI, and thinness
and narrowness of the four limbs, but in contrast to these
characteristics, also by the largest Z-triceps skinfold value.
In short, the badminton players were small but their upper
arm and trunk skinfolds were relatively great. The soccer
players were characterized by large girths of the four limbs
and a large BMI, but their elbow and knee breadths and Zsubscapular and Z-medial calf skinfolds were remarkably
smaller than in the medical students. The volleyball players
were taller and had greater weight, but their upper arm girth
was nearly the same as that of the soccer players, with
smaller calf girth, elbow and knee breadths, and skinfolds.
The medical students exhibited medium stature, weight, and
BMI among the four groups, while their elbow and knee
breadths and Z-subscapular and Z-medial calf skinfolds
were greater. In short, these students had more fat on their
legs relative to whole body size than the athletes. We are not
sure if this phenomenon was related to their socioeconomic
level or was a general aspect of being non-athletic students.
Somatotypes
The mean somatotype of the badminton players was 3.33.7-3.7, that of the soccer players 2.7-4.9-3.0, that of the volleyball players 2.4-3.5-3.7, and that of the medical students
2.7-5.2-3.8 (see Table 2). A comparison of the scores
between each pair of groups (multiple comparisons) is illustrated in Figure 2 together with the results of Scheffé’s non-
parametric test because a normal distribution had not been
assured in all the somatoscores. We observe that the badminton players have the highest endomorphic score among the
groups and a low mesomorphic score. The soccer players
were relatively less endomorphic and ectomorphic, but more
mesomorphic. The volleyball players were less endomorphic and mesomorphic but more ectomorphic than the soccer players and about the same as the badminton players and
students. The students were less endomorphic than the badminton players, but more mesomorphic than the badminton
and volleyball players, and more ectomorphic than the soccer players. In other words, the badminton players were relatively balanced in the three components; the soccer players
were characterized by a dominant mesomorphic component;
the volleyball players were characterized by a relatively
weaker endomorphic component; and the medical students
were characterized by a dominant mesomorphic component
as with the soccer players, but with a more ectomorphic
component.
The somatotype of each subject was designated according
to the Carter somatochart (Figure 3). In this figure, we
observe first that the distributions of the badminton players
and students extend to all the sectors except the ectomorphic endomorph sector, and that the scatter is relatively
more concentrated in the badminton players than in the
students. Second, we observe that the somatotype distributions of the soccer and volleyball players were biased, i.e.
with few falling into the ectomorphic endomorph sector,
many of the soccer players were rather mesomorphic, but the
volleyball players tended to be more ectomorphic.
Since these scattergrams indicate that the somatotype distributions differ according to the type of sports, each subject
was classified into one of the Carter somototype categories
(Carter and Heath, 1990: p. 406). We noticed that the distribution of the subjects was distinctive according to the type
of sports; in brief, the soccer players and non-athlete students were mesomorph, the volleyball players were ectomorph, and the badminton players were central. The
category ‘central’ appeared most frequently in the badminton players (6/19 or 32%), followed by the category ‘balanced ectomorph’ (3/19 or 16%). More than half of the
soccer players were ‘endomorphic mesomorph’ or ‘ectomorphic mesomorph’ (29/96 or 30% and 27/96 or 28%,
respectively). Among the volleyball players nearly half of
the subjects were ‘mesomorphic ectomorph’ (30/74 or
41%), followed by ‘central’ (12/74 or 16%). Among the
non-athlete students the most frequent category was ‘ectomorphic mesomorph’ (18/51 or 35.3%), followed by ‘endomorphic mesomorph’ (9/51 or 18%). The Pearson chisquare tests indicated that there were significant relationships between type of sports and somatotype categories.
4
N.T. RAHMAWATI ET AL.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Figure 1. Comparison of each measurement and results of the Tukey HSD or Scheffé’s tests (*, 0.05 > P > 0.01; **, 0.01 > P > 0.001;
***, 0.001 > P).
Vol. 115, 2007
SOMATOTYPES OF INDONESIAN ATHLETES AND STUDENTS
Figure 2. Comparison of each somatoscore and non-parametric test results (*, 0.05 > P > 0.01; **, 0.01 > P > 0.001; ***, 0.001 > P).
Figure 3. Somatotype distributions of subjects in each sport and of the non-athlete students.
5
6
N.T. RAHMAWATI ET AL.
Somatotypes of each type of sports: international comparisons
In the literature (Carter and Heath, 1990) we found somatotype descriptions of badminton, soccer and volleyball
players from all over the world. Using the mean somatoscores cited in that literature, we calculated the X and Y
coordinates and depicted the distribution of the mean somatotypes on the Carter somatochart (Figure 4). We then compared these with plots of the mean somatotypes of the
Indonesian players and students.
Badminton players
Only one reference for badminton players was available,
giving informantion on the South Australian somatotype
(see Carter and Heath, 1990). However, the sample number
was very small: 7 subjects with a mean age of 24.5, on average 20 cm higher and 22.5 kg heavier than the Indonesian
badminton players (P < 0.001 for both height and weight).
In contrast to the Indonesian badminton players, whose
mean somatotype was 3.3-3.7-3.7, which falls into the ‘central’ somatotype category, the South Australian players were
more mesomorphic by more than one unit with a mean
somatotype of 2.5-4.6-3.2, thus falling into the category
‘ectomorphic mesomorph’. We observe in Figure 4 that the
somatotypes of the Indonesian medical students were distributed very closely to that of the South Australian badminton players rather than to the Indonesian players.
Soccer players
Seven soccer player reference groups were available for
comparison with the Indonesian soccer players, as determined by the mean age of the subjects: Bratislava, South
Australia, Nigeria, two series from Brazil, Cuba, and Bolivians in Caracas (see Carter and Heath, 1990).
The mean height and weight of these groups of players
ranged from 169 to 178 cm and 69 to 75 kg, whereas those
of the Indonesians were 166 cm and 58 kg. Compared with
the smallest group among the references, the Indonesian
group was 3 cm shorter than the players in the Bolivar
Games (0.01 < P < 0.05), and 7 kg lighter than the players in
Nigeria (P < 0.001).
The mean somatotype of the Indonesian players was 2.7-
ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE
4.9-3.0, thus falling within the category ‘balanced mesomorph’. They did not differ greatly from the players of other
countries: i.e. players in Brazil were reported as ‘endomorphic mesomorph’ and the Bolivians in Caracas as ‘ectomorphic mesomorph’, but the others were all ‘balanced
mesomorph’, the same as the Indonesian players. Figure 4
indicates that all the groups, including the Indonesian students, were relatively well concentrated.
Volleyball players
Eight referenced players [Venezuela, Bolivar Games,
Cuba, South Australia, National, Camp and State groups in
India, and 1983 USA Olympic athletes (see Carter and
Heath, 1990)], with a mean age of 20 to 26 years old, were
compared with the Indonesian players. The mean height and
weight of the reference groups were 179 to 194 cm and 66 to
88 kg, respectively, while for the Indonesian players the
means were 173 cm and 61 kg, respectively, i.e. 6 cm and
5 kg smaller than the smallest group among the references,
namely the State players in India (P < 0.001 for both height
and weight).
Carter and Heath (1990) pointed out that there was a large
range of somatotype distribution in volleyball players, and
that the majority of somatotypes were ecto-mesomorphic but
ranging from endo-mesomorphy to meso-ectomorphy.
Except for the two groups, the National and State players in
India, who exhibited the somatotype category ‘mesomorphic
ectomorph’, the other groups of players, including the Indonesian, exhibited the category ‘ectomorphic mesomorph’. In
the Carter somatochart (Figure 4), however, a larger Y axis
range was observed in these volleyball groups, but the X
axis range was smaller than in the soccer groups. This observation seems to contradict the results of Carter and Heath
(1990).
In brief, we remark on two points comparing the Indonesian athletes and students with the athletes of the other countries. The first point is that the Indonesian athletes were
much shorter and lighter than the other athletes. Concerning
this point, we can presume that the normal non-athlete Indonesian population is significantly smaller than normal nonathlete Australians, Nigerians, South and Central Americans, and Indians, although hardly any anthropometric data
Figure 4. Comparison of international badminton, soccer, and volleyball players, including Indonesian players and students.
Vol. 115, 2007
SOMATOTYPES OF INDONESIAN ATHLETES AND STUDENTS
are available especially for non-athlete Indonesian adults. In
this case, even if the subjects had been national league players, the shortness and lightness of the Indonesian athlete subjects could be reasonably expected, and attributable to
genetic and/or so-called racial differences. The second point
is that the Indonesian students were rather closer to the international athlete groups than to the Indonesian athlete groups.
The likely reason for this could be the socioeconomic difference between the families of the local-level athletes and
medical students, although, in this case again, hardly any
concrete evidence is currently available.
Conclusions
This paper is the first study of adult Indonesian somatotypes, and in particular of male athletes in Indonesia. The
subjects were badminton, soccer, and volleyball players
aged in their 20s. Non-athlete undergraduate students were
also studied as a control group. The following findings were
obtained:
The results of ANOVA and the Kruskal–Wallis test
showed that these groups were heterogeneous: i.e. the badminton players were small in height and weight, but their
upper arm and trunk skinfolds were relatively great; the soccer players exhibited great girth in all four limbs and a large
BMI value, but their limb breadths and back and leg skinfolds were smaller than those of the non-athlete students; the
volleyball players were greater in stature and weight, but
smaller in skinfolds and limb girths and breadths. The students were medium in stature, weight, and BMI, but they
had greater skinfold on the legs.
The mean somatotype of the badminton players was ‘central’ (3.3-3.7-3.7), that of the soccer players was ‘balanced
mesomorph’ (2.7-4.9-3.0), that of the volleyball players was
‘mesomorph-ectomorph’ (2.4-3.5-3.7), and that of the students were ‘ectomorphic mesomorph’ (2.7-5.2-3.8).
Compared with international data, the Indonesian players
were found to be extremely short and light in each of the
sports.
The mean somatotype of the Indonesian badminton playErratum:
Page 2, left column, last two lines.
Now reads:
“where X = triceps skinfold + subscapular skinfold + supraspinale
skinfold”
Should read:
“where X = (triceps skinfold + subscapular skinfold + supraspinale
skinfold) × 170.18/height in cm”
7
ers was ‘central’, contrasting with the more mesomorphic
South Australian players. The mean somatotype of the Indonesian soccer players was ‘balanced mesomorph’, and thus
incorporated into the distribution of mean somatotypes of
the other countries. The somatotypes of the international
volleyball groups were divided into ‘mesomorphic ectomorph’ and ‘ectomorphic mesomorph’, with the latter incorporating the Indonesian players.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Professor T. Jacob for his
suggestion. We would like to express our heartily thanks to
the director of the Gadjah Mada Sport Study Center, the athletes of soccer, volleyball, and badminton, and the medical
students of the Gadjah Mada University, Jogjakarta, Indonesia.
References
Carter J.E.L. (1968) Somatotypes of college football players.
Research Quarterly, 39: 476–481.
Carter J.E.L. (1980) The Heath–Carter Somatotype Method. San
Diego State University Syllabus Service, San Diego.
Carter J.E.L. and Heath B.H. (1990) Somatotyping—Development
and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York.
de Garay A.L., Levine L., and Carter J.E.L. (1974) Genetic and
Anthropological Studies of Olympic Athletes. Academic
Press, New York.
Kansal D.K., Gupta N., and Gupta A.K. (1986) A study of
intrasport differences in the physique of Indian University
football players. In: Day J.A.P. (ed.), Perspectives in Kinanthropometry. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, pp.
143–153.
Piscopo J. and Baley J.A. (1981) Kinesiology. The Science of
Movement. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sheldon W.H. (1940) The Varieties of Human Physique. Harper
and Brothers, New York.
Sheldon W.H. (1954) Atlas of Men. Harper and Brothers, New
York.
Tanner J.M. (1962) Growth at Adolescence. Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Oxford.